Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles Remember the Army's new rifle/SAW

Well, for starters, you still have to have a firearms manufacturing license. So, uncle sugar still gets his cut of the tax there.

And you better still carry alot of insurance in case of anything bad happens. So, again, you're still hemorrhaging money.

You're still spending money on rent/lease. Wages. Tools and Machining. R&D. Bookkeeper/accountant. And that's all before you sell the first thing.

Selling your wares to either gov or aftermarket requires you to provide samples and plane tickets and room/board for whoever takes it to Yuma proving grounds.

I'm sure there are still things I'm forgetting.

But, when you buy something in the US, you're paying for a lot more than just the physical product in hand.

Not saying I agree with it all, as I’m retiring and our teams don’t have them…though one team I was attached to had one of the sig development guys and two of their academy trainers in it. They spoke highly of it, but they DO work for Sig….even if I’d trust their judgement, regardless.

There’s a lot that’s still unknown/classified about how they got there. They have access to much harder/better barrel steels and mfg processes for barrels these days than just about any barrel maker could use. I know they use some ‘super steels’ on cannon and artillery barrels and under very high pressures. The optics/ranging package eliminates nearly all variables but wind, for shooting out past 1k. There’s a lot to be said for that range extension capability for not much cost in weight. We shall see.

Slightly off topic....

If the military wants more punch out of an AR and are all concerned about ammo weight to be carried?

I've been playing with the 6 x 45 quite a bit in the last 6 months and doing a lot of testing of it and its capabilities within a bolt action rifle...which the same could be done with an AR...

My time in uniform was from the end of Vietnam until the end of 1982. We were always given 5.56 ammo loaded with 55 grain and 62 grain bullets in it...at like 3150 fps MV. We didn't use the later short barrel stuff...

It would require lengthening the mag well some, but that could easily be done...
My Savage Barrel is 20 inches and made by Douglas in West Virginia with a one in 7 twist.

With 24.5 grains of Benchmark, or 25.5 grains of AR Comp, it is shooting the 6mm, 105 gr BTHP at 2750 fps.
Just short of double the weight of the old 55 grain round, at 400 fps less MV.

However the aerodynamics of that bullet vs the 55 grainer in 22 caliber, it is much flatter shooting and delivers a substantial amount of energy, compared to the 22 cal 55 grainer.

Makes me wonder why they issued a 22 caliber bullet to troops in Vietnam, vs a 100 to 105 grain bullet in 6mm?
More desk jockey intelligence level results.....

Don't see what a 6.8 SPC delivers that a 6 x 45 won't. reinventing the wheel, isn't a solution, when just jumping up to 6mm would achieve the solution with a lot less problems.

Being a fairly extensively trained corpsman, ya learn alot about bullet wounds... how to take care of the patient that has been shot, and learn a lot of how to wound to kill an enemy combatant.

but hey, I don't work at the Pentagon or run the military....as a soldier, we just use what we were given... even it is put there based on a bunch of dumbasses and accountants, who never have to spend a minute in the field.

Honestly I'm not sure why they arent just returning to 20" barrels

A reminder that this is NOT the 6.8 SPC. This is a larger cased, 473 based case head, 277 running at up to 80k on pressure, vs 62k.

I do think a 6mm variant on the 6.8 (or even 223 case) case could have had merits as an issue round. 20” (even 14.5”) barrels suck when moving around in confined spaces. If you’re only going to work outdoors and on foot, it’s probably okay. It’s probably more desirous from a sniping perspective. I’m not getting into that subject.

If you’re using vehicles, in buildings or dug in positions, or run suppressors….longer barrels suck. I actually think we likely still need two rounds. I don’t get a say.

They may have barrel steels or coatings that slow erosion but the suppressor in my opinion is not going to fare well when shot full auto for the full ammo load of 400 rounds, which is 200 less than the old 249 gunner carried. I would figure 400 rounds of ammo loaded with enough powder to give a case the size of a 7-08 the speed of a 270 would have a lot of residue built up inside and would need at least cleaning. I also have never seen or handled a suppressor that anyone thought could take that kind of a beating. With the suppressor removed it will be very loud and might not function properly. The rifle ammo load has been kicked back to 140 rounds just like the M14. The new system to me is more like an improved AR10 variant.

As for the "range extension capability" wind is and always has been the real problem and shooting past 600 yards isn't going to be necessary unless you are in some high ground like Afghanistan. In fact the old saying we always build weapons for the last war seem applicable here.

7.62x51 is now 6.8x51? Seems silly.

They’ve had suppressors that are more than up to the task.

https://taskandpurpose.com/history/special-operations-forces-240-fvs-machine-gun-suppressor/

We shall see, the Lewis gun design was not for suppressing noise but flash.

This is the suppressor in use with the 240 presently. Probably the same one planned to use with the new 6.8x51.

https://www.silencershop.com/sig-sauer-slx-762-c-qd-suppressor.html

Wouldn't it have been better to just stick with the proven 7.62x51mm NATO and design more modern individual/crew weapon systems with lightweight materials rather than start from scratch with what appears to be a cartridge rife with teething problems?

This right here.

BS, MS, PHD

The problem is the 7.62x51 is a suck cartridge. Sorry.

And the Sig *is* the " more modern individual/crew weapon systems with lightweight materials".

The 7.62 may be a suck cartridge but5 it has served with distinction. The Sig is nothing more than a prettied up and strengthened version of the AR10. I see no improvement in either rifle or SAW version and there will be problems with ammo supply. Just like the M60 and the 240 the new Fury will take more than one person to crew if only for ammo carry.

Missed this post prior, MM, but this is along the lines I was thinking. Why trash the 5.56? Kind of reminds me of the Warthog.

it is true that the 5.56 is coming to the end of service life. its big problem is body armor and ballistic plates. the 5.56 doesn't penetrate well on class 3 body armor. on class 4 body armor, a 5.56 just doesn't penetrate at all. the military is deciding on the 6.8x51 because it is able to penetrate class 4 body armor and plates. i think its chamber pressure is 80,000psi, but that due to 3 piece case. a steel case head and a brass body connected by an aluminum washer. the US could likely have the 6.8x51, but NATO would not approve. why? they just done re-arming the 5.56 from the 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 (Poland, Estonia and the like).

the big problem i have will be the recoil, only 20 round magazine and the A-10 weapon. you won't need fully auto anymore, unless you are shooting at the sky. 2 round burst is needed. a basic combat load in the 5.56 is 210 rounds (7 30 round mags). since the 6.8 is only a 20 round mag, the basic loading is either 200 (10 mags) or 220 rounds (11 mags). that is an awful amount of weight. if you go on a combat run, you will have to double or triple it. then you have to go with a different weapon platform, an A-10. its heavier than an A-15 (5.56) and the greater recoil will be an issue. the ammo production will be expensive because of the case.

They forgot to invoke the Goddesses ISO and Quality…., or are those Racissst now?

Every first person account I've read from Vietnam was that people hated the 5.56 because it lacked penetration in the brush and they held on to their m14's as long as possible despite the weight and ammo reduction issues. With the right metallurgy and treatments, I could see these new barrels holding up pretty damned well. I'll reserve judgement until results are in.

More than once in the past, events have quashed weapons replacement programs. This may turn out to be such a time.